I personally don't see Apple implementing a bit-torrent network in iTunes, the record companies would be completely against this, but I could see Apple creating a brand new type of network to distribute files over iTunes.
I could image the possibilities of this: users who share some of their Internet connection with other iTunes users could get 5 cents off each tune they buy, Apple could save loads of cash by not dealing with companies such as Akamai and finally earn some cash from the iTunes Music Store, etc etc. But best of all, the record companies would have no excuse to be against a brand new, secure, proprietary network.
I highly doubt Apple will release an iPod video, the content just isn't there. Additionally, an iPod screen is too small, even if it were stretched the screen to three inches, or something of that nature. And who is going to bother hooking up the iPod to their T.V. each time they want to watch a video?
But I remember watching a stream of Motorola's press event, and they stated that Apple would release it's phone before the end of this quarter.
Could it be there were some delay in the phone they're developing? Is this Special Event scheduled before Apple's current quarter ends? I'd appreciate a response to the latter question.
AMD's action to attempt to make the public aware of Intel's actions may lead to increased awareness for AMD's brand, but brand awareness is definitely not the same thing as an actual "brand".
A brand is essentially how a company is perceived by the public, and if a brand does not have a good image, awareness will only lead to a speedy death. Starbucks, Apple, Harley Davidson and Google have excellent brands which contribute to the factors that make them successful. Dell built trust with customers and created a good image for themselves and now they are producing the most computers out of all the computer manufacturers in North America.
I didn't read the article, but what AMD has to do is decrease public trust in Intel and increase public trust in their brand, which may be difficult for them to do.
When requesting a replacement battery, you are asked to give the serial number for your laptop. Your serial number is connected with your name and credit card number, most likely.
I buzzed Apple because the form to request a replacement battery was not operating properly for me - it was reporting my proper serial number as being incorrect. They said they are working on the form at the moment, and will deal with support calls regarding the replacement program tomorrow.
If you fail to ship in the old battery (as the less-than-courteous support person pointed out), "we'll hold your credit card as collateral unless you send us your battery".
I am an iBook user, and qualify for the battery replacement program.
When Apple sends me a free battery, am I required to part with the old one and send it back to Apple? I've been thinking about purchasing a second battery for the extra-long car trips, and this would be a nice alternative to shelling out for a battery from Apple.
Thanks.
Can I simply ask somebody who really knows? What are the costs associated with digital distribution versus printing and distribution of physical media? Is this simply a case of music labels being greedy? Come on now. This is an industry that simply does not get it. Music sales declined through the late 90's because the music that was being promulgated on us by the music labels sucked. Big time. Throughout the entire decade of the 90's, they waited for somebody else to innovate the digital distribution of music (Napster), and waited for Apple to do it right with the iTunes Music Store, and now they want to profit on top of all of others hard work. I guess it is a business model that works, but come on now, have some respect for what you do! Are you making a profit with iTunes with the current pricing scheme? It would certainly appear to be the case, so why are you now trying to increase prices? The cost of distribution through the Apple iTMS has not changed. Apple has not changed the terms for distributing music in your contracts. Apple is not making any more money on it than previously agreed. I guess we should not really be surprised though. Remember when CDs first came out? Remember the cost of a vinyl album at the time ($7)? Remember the cost of a CD at the time($12-15)? Remember the music industries promise that CD costs would drop when they became popular? Consider especially that shelf space could hold more CD's and the distribution costs for CDs were significantly less than they were for vinyl. Consider that the costs for pressing a CD were/are significantly less than those for vinyl. I would assume that there is an order of magnitude difference in the distribution costs for Internet delivery versus physical media delivery that would make Internet delivery significantly less expensive and thus more profitable.
Here is a prediction: If the price for music increases right now for digital distribution, sales will fall and piracy will increase. Apple did the hard work of market research on what folks want to pay for music downloaded from the Internet and they concluded that.99 cents/song was the sweet spot where they could offer a service, make minimal profit from the songs themselves, and distribute most of the music profits to the music labels. Of course the iTMS should be considered a loss leader of sorts as it drives sales of iPods, but Apple themselves are making almost nothing on music sales specifically.
The following is found at Appleinsider.com, on their "BACK PAGE".
"Some leading music labels are in talks with online retailers to raise wholesale prices for digital music downloads in an attempt to capitalise on burgeoning demand for legal online music," the Financial Times is reporting. The move, which aims to secure the record labels a larger stake in the digital music arena, has reportedly left Apple chief executive Steve Jobs fuming. However, around this last year, Apple denied similar rumors published by The NY Post. "These rumors aren't true," Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira said at the time. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track." This is the second year in a row that talk of digital music price hikes have surfaced around the anniversary of the iTunes Music Store -- a period where Apple's contracts with the labels may be up for re-negotiation. The store first launched on April 28, 2003.
Woah - this article has only 52 comments, and it was posted eight hours ago! Does anyone here know the least amount of comments that was ever received for an article?
I think what would be better than working 400 years and receiving 100 retirement years would be to work for, say, 55 years, then receive 30 years retirement.
Slashdot Mirror
Being free is not worth what they'll leave behind.
I personally don't see Apple implementing a bit-torrent network in iTunes, the record companies would be completely against this, but I could see Apple creating a brand new type of network to distribute files over iTunes.
I could image the possibilities of this: users who share some of their Internet connection with other iTunes users could get 5 cents off each tune they buy, Apple could save loads of cash by not dealing with companies such as Akamai and finally earn some cash from the iTunes Music Store, etc etc. But best of all, the record companies would have no excuse to be against a brand new, secure, proprietary network.
I highly doubt Apple will release an iPod video, the content just isn't there. Additionally, an iPod screen is too small, even if it were stretched the screen to three inches, or something of that nature. And who is going to bother hooking up the iPod to their T.V. each time they want to watch a video?
But I remember watching a stream of Motorola's press event, and they stated that Apple would release it's phone before the end of this quarter.
Could it be there were some delay in the phone they're developing? Is this Special Event scheduled before Apple's current quarter ends? I'd appreciate a response to the latter question.
What ever happened to e-Gold?
eBay didn't buy them.
Most comments I see posted responding to this article use "99 cents" or $0.99. To make a cent sign in Windows, hold Alt while pressing 0162.
On a Mac, press Alt + 4.
AMD's action to attempt to make the public aware of Intel's actions may lead to increased awareness for AMD's brand, but brand awareness is definitely not the same thing as an actual "brand".
A brand is essentially how a company is perceived by the public, and if a brand does not have a good image, awareness will only lead to a speedy death. Starbucks, Apple, Harley Davidson and Google have excellent brands which contribute to the factors that make them successful. Dell built trust with customers and created a good image for themselves and now they are producing the most computers out of all the computer manufacturers in North America.
I didn't read the article, but what AMD has to do is decrease public trust in Intel and increase public trust in their brand, which may be difficult for them to do.
Perhaps not. Possibly two men and a chemistry set.
Yeah, but I can't afford a good wife to clean my floors.
When requesting a replacement battery, you are asked to give the serial number for your laptop. Your serial number is connected with your name and credit card number, most likely.
I buzzed Apple because the form to request a replacement battery was not operating properly for me - it was reporting my proper serial number as being incorrect. They said they are working on the form at the moment, and will deal with support calls regarding the replacement program tomorrow.
If you fail to ship in the old battery (as the less-than-courteous support person pointed out), "we'll hold your credit card as collateral unless you send us your battery".
I am an iBook user, and qualify for the battery replacement program. When Apple sends me a free battery, am I required to part with the old one and send it back to Apple? I've been thinking about purchasing a second battery for the extra-long car trips, and this would be a nice alternative to shelling out for a battery from Apple. Thanks.
Woah! This is like Google Answers but like, 10 times better!
Will the update feature require the user to click an "update" button, or will Firefox update automatically?
While Apple updates searching and adds over 200 features in Tiger, Microsoft updates the "BSOD" in Longhorn.
Somebody wants a free Macintosh..
I was recently helping a friend of mine shop for a new system.
Just give him one of yours..
Can I simply ask somebody who really knows? What are the costs associated with digital distribution versus printing and distribution of physical media? Is this simply a case of music labels being greedy? Come on now. This is an industry that simply does not get it. Music sales declined through the late 90's because the music that was being promulgated on us by the music labels sucked. Big time. Throughout the entire decade of the 90's, they waited for somebody else to innovate the digital distribution of music (Napster), and waited for Apple to do it right with the iTunes Music Store, and now they want to profit on top of all of others hard work. I guess it is a business model that works, but come on now, have some respect for what you do! Are you making a profit with iTunes with the current pricing scheme? It would certainly appear to be the case, so why are you now trying to increase prices? The cost of distribution through the Apple iTMS has not changed. Apple has not changed the terms for distributing music in your contracts. Apple is not making any more money on it than previously agreed. I guess we should not really be surprised though. Remember when CDs first came out? Remember the cost of a vinyl album at the time ($7)? Remember the cost of a CD at the time($12-15)? Remember the music industries promise that CD costs would drop when they became popular? Consider especially that shelf space could hold more CD's and the distribution costs for CDs were significantly less than they were for vinyl. Consider that the costs for pressing a CD were/are significantly less than those for vinyl. I would assume that there is an order of magnitude difference in the distribution costs for Internet delivery versus physical media delivery that would make Internet delivery significantly less expensive and thus more profitable.
.99 cents/song was the sweet spot where they could offer a service, make minimal profit from the songs themselves, and distribute most of the music profits to the music labels. Of course the iTMS should be considered a loss leader of sorts as it drives sales of iPods, but Apple themselves are making almost nothing on music sales specifically.
Here is a prediction: If the price for music increases right now for digital distribution, sales will fall and piracy will increase. Apple did the hard work of market research on what folks want to pay for music downloaded from the Internet and they concluded that
The following is found at Appleinsider.com, on their "BACK PAGE". "Some leading music labels are in talks with online retailers to raise wholesale prices for digital music downloads in an attempt to capitalise on burgeoning demand for legal online music," the Financial Times is reporting. The move, which aims to secure the record labels a larger stake in the digital music arena, has reportedly left Apple chief executive Steve Jobs fuming. However, around this last year, Apple denied similar rumors published by The NY Post. "These rumors aren't true," Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira said at the time. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track." This is the second year in a row that talk of digital music price hikes have surfaced around the anniversary of the iTunes Music Store -- a period where Apple's contracts with the labels may be up for re-negotiation. The store first launched on April 28, 2003.
Woah - this article has only 52 comments, and it was posted eight hours ago! Does anyone here know the least amount of comments that was ever received for an article?
Amen.
I think what would be better than working 400 years and receiving 100 retirement years would be to work for, say, 55 years, then receive 30 years retirement.
Wash, rinse repeat.
Don't let the term "Micro soft" fool you.
"Who's panicking now, Biotch"
Those would go for a lot on eBay - they're all in mint condition.
http://www.enlightenment.org/